As per the tradition, the SC verdicts given by bench mention the name of the judge who penned the verdict. But, the author of 1024-page Ayodhya judgment remains a mystery.

HIGHLIGHTS

The established practice is to specify the name of the judge who has authored the judgment

The author of this 116-page addendum has also chosen to remain anonymous

The landmark judgment in decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit is out. The case, in which the first petition was filed 69 years ago, was brought to a conclusion by a five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Other judges in the bench included CJI-designate Justice SA Bobde, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

But, surprisingly, the author of 1024-page judgment remains a mystery. As per the tradition, the SC verdicts given by bench mention the name of the judge who penned the verdict.

But in this case, the SC bench has decided to depart from the norm and keep the identity of the judge hidden.

This is highly unusual and in a departure from convention. The established practice is to specify the name of the judge who has authored the judgment on behalf of a bench.

But the mystery does not end there. The last para of the main judgment says that while the judgment is unanimous, one of the judges in the bench has recorded separate reasons on: Whether the disputed structure is the birth-place of Lord Ram according to the faith and belief of the Hindu devotees. The reasons of the learned judge are set out in an addendum.

The author of this 116-page addendum has also chosen to remain anonymous.

The addendum explored ancient Hindu scriptures quoted in the court to establish that Hindu devotees have always worshipped at the disputed site and believed it to be Lord Ram's birthplace of Ram Janmabhoomi.

The addendum mentions scriptures like Brihad-dharmottara Purana and Skanda Purana, which were quoted by the witnesses produced during the hearings to 'prove' that Lord Ram's birthplace was exactly where the Babri Masjid's dome stood before it was demolished in December 1992.

It also mentions a witness's testimony where he says that Sikh scriptures give evidence of Guru Nanak Dev's visit to Ram Janmabhoomi around 1510-11, before Babur's invasion of India.

"It is found that in the period prior to 1528 A.D., there was sufficient religious texts, which led the Hindus to believe the present site of Ram Janma Bhumi as the birthplace of Lord Ram".

At the end, it concludes :

"It is thus concluded on the conclusion that faith and belief of Hindus since prior to construction of Mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed which faith and belief is proved by documentary and oral evidence discussed above."

It is not a common practice to keep the name of the author of the judgment a secrete nor does the name of the judge writing an addendum is usually kept under wraps.

Here is a look at a few cases in the recent past where the judges voiced their individual opinion during the verdict:

In a recent case, when SC-bench of five judges, led by then-CJI Dipak Misra, announced the verdict in Aadhaar case, one judge stood out. While the majority judgment ruled in favor of the Aadhaar's validity, Justice Chandrachud said that it was not legal since it was not a money bill but was passed using the procedure reserved for a money bill.

In yet another landmark judgment in the same month, Justice Indu Malhotra stood out from her five-judge bench in the Sabrimala verdict. As the four judges voted in favour of women's entry into the temple, Justice Indu Malhotra argued that issues with deep religious values should not be tinkered with to maintain a secular atmosphere in the country.

In 2017, during the Triple Talaq judgment, which directed Centre for form legislation, the CJI himself penned a dissenting judgment.

Then-Chief Justice of India JS Khehar's vote came out in minority. The decision was split 3-2. CJI wanted to uphold the constitutionality of the Muslim practice of instant divorce. In the end, the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq, with the bench split 3-2.